Progressives (Liberals)

Gee, you are a hypocrite, Edgar. You try to silence science and evidence all the time!!!!

Because Trump says that the twin towers were brought down with bombs.

Benjamin Studebaker
@BMStudebaker
·
Sep 16
My parents--who are not very online and get most of their news from traditional media like the Chicago Tribune, WGN, and NPR--cannot understand why
@BernieSanders
isn't more aggressively differentiating himself from Elizabeth Warren. They say no one knows the difference.

No. Because Trump will protect me from nasty progressives who want to violate my civil liberties for fun.

By all means, list and describe your arguments against her.

My views on Bernie's political limitations appear to be fairly close to yours. However I also find the political programs advocated by both Sanders and Warren would be equally destructive to the performance of our economy, the welfare of most citizens and our personal freedoms. I don't view the extension of the reach of government into new areas of my life, including medical care and my free economic activity as a beneficial thing at all. Indeed history provides ample evidence of the contrary - one exchanges generally poor quality government services for higher taxes (more than one saves) and a significant loss of personal freedom.

He is a politician who's driven by a cause yet knows how things get done in politics: with allies, and being a dependable ally is important to him, no doubt on a personal level but also politically, in order to win that race, beat Biden and beat Trump. And then do the revolution, or whatever he can to that effect.

If at some point he concludes that Warren is a fraud, he will say it. But also, if he concludes that she has better chances of winning than he does and that she will do a good job as president, no doubt he will yield in her favor. Because he cares for the cause, for the American people, more than he cares for himself.

You're mistaken. I'm a fervent Bernite myself, in fact more so than those who disparage his allies.


Let's agree to disagree on this one as well.

That's because the technical details of the controversy are outside the scope of our experience and the range of our knowledge. And when farmerman, who seems to be familiar with some of the materials and their properties, attempts to counter any of the claims you've found on the web, you just start insulting him in a particularly malicious manner. Suddenly the discussion is turned into a debate about the collective guilt of USAmericans — which is an entirely separate issue.

No, it's not that no one wants to try, it's that no one wants to engage with you.

It's not difficult to find accounts which contradict the narrative you favor. But just posting contradictory theories from various websites and blogs isn't going to establish the factual basis for us to make any conclusions other than those based on faith, faith in the quoted sources. The argument is between the engineers and specialists who have technical expertise, not between people on a message board who, at best, might be able to assess the logic of the arguments but lack the scientific background to really determine who's right or wrong.

Given the difficulty of knowing who to believe, people will come down on one side or the other based on further consideration of the total context of the event. Numerous bits of evidence involve the 19 Arab hijackers, OBL, and al-Qaeda and there's a clear motive for conducting a terrorist act against the USA. On the other hand, nearly twenty years after the event, those insisting it was an "inside job" have provided nothing more than "jet fuel can't melt steel beams". There's been no accusation as to who was behind this decision and no explanation as to why it was done in the first place. Meanwhile we're supposed to believe there were no jets and no terrorists, yet nearly twenty years after the disaster, no one who believes in the "inside job" story has been able to show that the alleged hijackers didn't buy tickets for those flights and that they weren't observed making these purchases on CCTV.

I'm not going to get drawn into this debate with you but I did want to register my disappointment with your whole attitude and the way you treat other people on this website. People believe one story or the other and probably made up their minds fifteen years ago. There are plenty of engineers who can counter the "scientific" claims you quote from the conspiracy websites, and plenty of sites where the claims of the "truthers" are debunked. The fact that there are more websites upholding the "inside job" version doesn't mean that the facts are on your side, just that the rest of us aren't that desperate to keep this pointless discussion going on forever.

"None of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire."

Then you should be able to produce the transcribed quote where he says this or at least direct us to the source. I want to see where he says "for my own enjoyment". Otherwise you're a liar.

Then you should be able to produce the transcribed quote where they [Bush, Cheney, Blair, Colon Powell, ... ] say OBL was involved in 9-11 or at least direct us to the source. I want to see where they say that. Otherwise you're a liar.

1. Warren votes for military budgets over domestic.
2. She embraces Clinton politically.
3. She made very few progressive pronouncements before running for president, then one by one began adapting Sanders' ideas, presenting versions to call her own, but hedging so that in the general election she is able to move back to the center. She voices her healthcare ideas in different ways, says she is for universal healthcare sometimes, but it is not on the goals she ticks off on her website.

4. She claims not to be accepting big money, but moved a bunch of it to her campaign before saying that. If she gets nominated she has already stated that she will then accept big money.

5. Not so long ago she was an avid Republican.

6. She lied about being Native American and did not even support Indians against the pipelines until she began her campaign.

These are some off the top of my head. There are more.

Farmerman has been lying for a very long time and he knows he is lying. He totally avoids the sources which prove, irrefutably, that the 3 towers were blown up. Your specious claim that "the technical details of the controversy are outside the scope of our experience and the range of our knowledge" are just that, specious.

A child knows that 1300F max, WTC fires cannot melt and vaporize structural steel just as a child knows that the sun cannot melt steel.

Adults all know that usa military nanothermite had no legal/legitimate reason for being in WTC.

Adults all know that when the by products/residues of these nanothermite explosions are found in WTC dust, iron microspheres, a major by product of thermitic reactions/explosions at 150 times normal then there is a serious issue with the US government official conspiracy theory.

When the seismic record says huge subterranean explosions before the plane hit WTC1, adults know full well that there is a serious issue with the US government official conspiracy theory.

There are myriad examples of these total impossibilities to the US official story but as you well know, NO adults, except Builder, Glennn, [others???] have the necessary degree of honesty to address these total impossibilities to the usa story.

7. Applauding Trump for saying we will never be a socialist country and also saying she is an avowed capitalist, all while stealing Sanders' socialist rhetoric.

It is impossible for you to find these accounts you think exist because they do not exist. And when measured against the TOTAL impossibility of Muslims melting steel with 1300F fires, Muslims causing WTC7 to free fall, they never went near it according to the USGOCT, a normal adult would say, "Hold it here, there is something seriously wrong with the story we have been given."

Then find them, ask FM to present them. They do not exist. For a very good reason. The USGOCT is a total lie beginning to end.

When AE911Truth presents WTC7 to most/many engineers, they do not even know the evidence/science of 9-11. They agree that it was a CD.

reposting

Good dog almighty, hightor!!! You pick an absolutely atrocious example of evidence from the WEB.

FEMA, do you know who they are?, document the molten/vaporized WTC steel from all three towers, WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

The NYTs wrote stories on it, describing how "fire wise professors were perplexed by how regular office fires could melt and vaporize the WTC structural steel. The same professors who did the FEMA study.

Let's go slow on this. At the following link you can see a piece of WTC7 steel that is both melted and vaporized.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Sort of similar to the critiques about Trump's "orange hair."

I agree with you that it should be immaterial, but in 2019, it sure the hell isn't.

Let's not forget the small hands comments that flooded the internet...